(24-01-2017 09:01 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote: Always keep in mind that Tomasia has no evidence to support the existence of a 'fallen' state, or how that's any different from 'not fallen'. This is a shining example of post hoc rationalization.

If we can conceive of what it means to be good, then it's not hard to see that we're quite far from that. We're petty little creatures, prone to give in to out temptations, irritable and temperamental. I doubt many people here would see themselves as paradigms of goodness, though they might all desire to be good. Fallen would be representative of missing the mark here.

I don't think you can conceive of what it means for something or someone to be "good" or "bad?" Your theology places humans in a special category among living things, but fails to substantiate why it does so. Instead, it assigns special attributes and meaning to humanity's existence while continually shifting the burden of proof. So instead of humans having evolved in a manner consistent with how literally every other living thing has evolved, you assert we were "created" in a "fallen state." Which basically translates to "humans aren't perfect, so I have to invent a reason to explain this that doesn't make it god's fault we are fucked up."

(24-01-2017 07:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote: As a theist, who accepts evolution, I believe we were created into a fallen state.

There is no Christian theologian or philosopher that buys that nonsense.
A perfect god making imperfect creatures ...
Just more evidence you are no Christian, and you make up bullshit.
There is no "fallen" state. Humans EVOLVED.
They were at no point "created" in ANY state, and there is not a shred of evidence for a "creation event".

Christians cooked up the idea of "original sin" as they saw the world as it was, and needed to try to explain it. Death and disease FAR predated human's arrival on Earth.
We know (those evil) dinosaurs got cancer. They're all dead.

The "garden myth" (Adam and Steve Eve) is a re-working of the Babylonian Chaos myth(s), which the Judean priests had access to, when they were assembling the texts that made up the Bible. We know where they got them, and how they were re-worked, (well, those who have taken Comparative Mythology do). The best explanation I've ever seen for the Hebrew myth, is in Part 2, of the great Jewish philosopher's (Martin Buber's) book, "Good and Evil", (which in in perfect alignment with Paul Tillich's (Christian theologian/thinker/academic) ideas concerning morality, which he explains in "The Courage To Be").

Quote:How do they determine which parts of the Bible are considered myth and which aren't?

Same way I distinguish between hyperbole, sarcasm, metaphors etc.. in every day human communication. The communities of the bible didn't have different genres of writings, a separate philosophical writings, or separate fictional, and historical writings, they were all just lumped into their texts. They also weren't concerned with passing on a literal history, as they were in passing on the meaning of history. Our own basic obsession with literalism, is more a product of the scientific age, than in the ancient past. And much of our own misunderstanding comes from projecting our present proclivities on to the past.

Translation: "I cherry pick the bible thus interpreting it in a manner that is aligned with my own narrow religious perspective thereby utilising confirmation bias to enable me to select those allegorical or metaphorical elements which I agree with as "truths" while rejecting those that I perceive as being patent nonsense, and can therefore label as myths. I can also claim that other interpretations are mistaken because they project the proclivities of those who do not agree with my viewpoint."

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alikeExcreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)

(24-01-2017 10:31 AM)Silly Deity Wrote: Translation: "I cherry pick the bible thus interpreting it in a manner that is aligned with my own narrow religious perspective thereby utilising confirmation bias to enable me to select those allegorical or metaphorical elements which I agree with as "truths" while rejecting those that I perceive as being patent nonsense, and can therefore label as myths. I can also claim that other interpretations are mistaken because they project the proclivities of those who do not agree with my viewpoint."

No, I just read the bible like I do any other work of literature, like I would any other religious book, or story or narrative. When I was a kid I enjoyed reading greek mythology, and I didn't feel compelled or indoctrinated to read the bible differently. And I would discuss the meaning of a biblical story, or passage, the same way I might discuss the meaning or interpretation of Dostoevsky's work, or a children's parable.

Some of you who may have read these texts differently, when growing up christians, did so, likely because you had individuals, pastors, etc.. who indoctrinated you into reading it that way, I was sadly absent of this. And I don't see your common self-identifying literalists as all that interested in actually reading the bible, but more interested in defending against his own religious insecurities, the bible is used more as a tool in that regard, rather than a work to be read and understood honestly.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

(24-01-2017 10:55 AM)Tomasia Wrote: No, I just read the bible like I do any other work of literature, like I would any other religious book, or story or narrative. When I was a kid I enjoyed reading greek mythology, and I didn't feel compelled or indoctrinated to read the bible differently. And I would discuss the meaning of a biblical story, or passage, the same way I might discuss the meaning or interpretation of Dostoevsky's work, or a children's parable.

Some of you who may have read these texts differently, when growing up christians, did so, likely because you had individuals, pastors, etc.. who indoctrinated you into reading it that way, I was sadly absent of this. And I don't see your common self-identifying literalists as all that interested in actually reading the bible, but more interested in defending against his own religious insecurities, the bible is used more as a tool in that regard, rather than a work to be read and understood honestly.

So you reject the bible as a collection of sacred texts and scriptures that are a product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between God and humans.

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alikeExcreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)

(24-01-2017 11:04 AM)Silly Deity Wrote: So you reject the bible as a collection of sacred texts and scriptures that are a product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between God and humans.

As I said I read the bible, like I do any other work of literature. I may think of different works of literature differently, such as the works of Dostoevsky vs the works of Nichols Sparks, or Dostoevky's understanding of the human condition, vs. Nietzsche's etc, yet read them the same.

There is no special tool box used in interpreting one work, but not the other. The equivalency here, being pointed out by me is in regards to reading, not in regards to my overall opinion of one work over the other. I.E if i read something as a metaphor in the bible, is likely for the same reasons that I read a metaphor in any other texts, not as you suggested "cherry-picking".

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

(24-01-2017 11:04 AM)Silly Deity Wrote: So you reject the bible as a collection of sacred texts and scriptures that are a product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between God and humans.

As I said I read the bible, like I do any other work of literature. I may think of different works of literature differently, such as the works of Dostoevsky vs the works of Nichols Sparks, or Dostoevky's understanding of the human condition, vs. Nietzsche's etc, yet read them the same.

There no special tools book used in interpretation one work, but not the other. The equivalency here, being point out by me is regards to reading, not in regards to my overall opinion of one work over the other.

I read it like I read Harry Potter.

still waiting on you to articulate and explain your beliefs while simultaneously explaining my "strawman"

(24-01-2017 11:04 AM)Silly Deity Wrote: So you reject the bible as a collection of sacred texts and scriptures that are a product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between God and humans.

As I said I read the bible, like I do any other work of literature. I may think of different works of literature differently, such as the works of Dostoevsky vs the works of Nichols Sparks, or Dostoevky's understanding of the human condition, vs. Nietzsche's etc, yet read them the same.

There is no special tool box used in interpreting one work, but not the other. The equivalency here, being pointed out by me is in regards to reading, not in regards to my overall opinion of one work over the other. I.E if i read something as a metaphor in the bible, is likely for the same reasons that I read a metaphor in any other texts, not as you suggested "cherry-picking".

I'll take that as a "YES" then.

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alikeExcreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)